Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
The issue is L1 vs L2 at home. Both for PHEVs and BEVs, the smaller the distance the better L1 will work for daily driving. Both the BEV and the PHEV needs something else for longer trips, of course.

The difference

is that you quoted the average number rather than the median. When you should have quoted the median, and perhaps mentioned something about the distribution.

As I've pointed out, using the average daily commute instead of the median presents the worst case for PHEVs; using the median just makes the emissions and price advantages of PHEVs over BEVs for now even greater.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
being that the PHEV already has the 'something else', in fact the something else is ubiquitous.

Sure. There is a place for PHEVs, if you fit in the Goldilock's use case. Enough local all electric miles to pay for the higher cost dual drive train, and enough but not too many miles outside the areas with good enough public charging.

WHAT higher cost dual drive train? The dual drive train isn't higher-cost yet, it's lower, $5,710 worth MSRP in the case of the Niro as I've shown (with the Niro PHEV in turn being more expensive than the much smaller battery HEV version). Address the facts, not the "facts".


WetEV said:
As PHEVs usually get worse gas mileage than the equivalent HEV or even an ICE, you can't drive too many long trips or you would have been better off buying the HEV or ICE. And you want to mandate this for everyone? Sad.

PHEVs usually get worse MPG than their equivalent HEV AOTBE (which they often aren't. PHEVs e.g. the RAV4 Prime and the upcoming Prius Prime often have higher performance than their HEV versions) not their equivalent ICE, although there are a few cases like the X5 where they don't, as I've noted. As I've also noted, whether or not an HEV, PHEV or BEV is the best choice from a GHG perspective depends on the use case. In mine, as we've both agreed, an HEV does so. But you're the one who's argued that most people only take a few trips a year mainly weekend-length and do most of their driving locally, and I agree, which is exactly the Goldilocks case for PHEVs if you want to spread the limited battery supply over the most people to reduce emissions as much as possible, ASAP.

Another, even more efficient and cost-effective option for the above mix is for someone who needs to own a car as a daily driver to buy a small battery BEV rather than a PHEV (assuming similar charging opportunity), and then rent a high MPG HEV (or PHEV or BEV, as appropriate) for the occasional trip. Works, but that assumes that most people are willing to do that rather than own a car that will do it all for them. As we know, only a tiny minority are willing to adopt that approach, although hopefully it will grow with the spread of subscription and other forms of MaaS. Hopefully more manufacturers will offer such options, as BMW did with the i3 in at least some markets.

Now, you've accused me of wanting to mandate PHEVs. You really need to stop making **** up. Please point out where I've done so. I've said numerous times that we should eliminate subsidies to buy cars and let people decide which approach is best for them, while reducing our emissions. We should, and do, mandate emissions and efficiency requirements across a manufacturer's total sales as well as to qualify for special perks in a few cases, like lower parking fees or tolls for bridges or congestion/ULEV zones, plus the SO HOV access that I deplore. We need a lot more ULEV/ZEV zones.


WetEV said:
the xDrive45e, actually earns a worse EPA combined number than the non-hybrid xDrive40i

Enough local electric miles, enough long miles but not too many long miles. Not to cold, not too hot. Just right. No wonder that many are driven just like they were an ICE, with a freeway carpool pass, and with State and Federal subsidies.

How do you know 'many' X5 PHEVs are driven just like they were ICEs? If they're company cars then maybe, for the reason I've noted, but that's fixable. The one Xdrive 45e I 'm personally familiar with is used as a PHEV, as were the shorter AER Fusion Energis that preceded it. They've all been L1 charged daily overnight as needed, using the AER first for all local driving. Anecdotal of course, but none of those cars were leased to get HOV access "and screw the emissions".

Here's someone else's suggestions for modifying PHEV incentives; while I'd take a different approach and get rid of the subsidies, these modify them to achieve the same end goal: https://evadoption.com/phevs-are-a-great-solution-for-many-but-phev-incentives-need-fixing/

You should already know my attitude towards SO HOV lane access, for ANY car. As to state and federal subsidies, dump them for all cars, PHEV, BEV, FCEV - let people decide what makes the most sense for them, financially and otherwise in their situation, without the government incentivizing them to choose one over another, often to the detriment of the overall goal of reducing fossil-fuel use ASAP at the lowest overall cost.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Cost of L2 is trivial when compared with a Porsche Taycan Turbo. I'd expect nearly 100% L2 at home.

Cost of L2 is far more significant when compared with a used LEAF that Dad sold cheap. L2 might actually cost more than the car. Why would you expect anything other than L1... unless actually needed.

As BEVs will move down market over the next couple of decades, I'd expect that more BEV drivers will use L1.

As most people should have accessible DCFCs by that time, then sure, if L1s provide enough range to handle their routine driving and they don't mind the inconvenience of having to charge away from home occasionally when they need to exceed their typical range on short notice, as may be the case with the friend I mentioned.

BMW drivers are less limited by budget. You get what you can afford, if you are smart. L1 is more affordable than L2. "Can't afford a BMW" drivers are more likely to use L1.

Obviously, although as noted this particular couple could have afforded L2 years ago, it simply didn't provide enough benefit for their PHEVs to be worth the hassle. Now that they plan to go all BEV in the near future and they had to get a lot of electrical upgrades done in any case to provide for the BEV they just bought, it does. Although at the moment they're charging both of them L1 with the occasional trip to a nearby FC for the Lightning. The concrete floor and driveway for the new carport with L2 charging for two cars they built away from the house still needs another week or two of setting before they can park on it. None of this applies to the typical renter, especially in an MUD.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
PHEVs could be made in larger numbers, but would require significant subsidies and/or mandates to be sold in such numbers. Why? Drive one.

Subsidies for BEVs only increase the sales growth rate. BEVs would sell in increasing numbers without subsidies.

I have driven one, my friend's, albeit briefly and only in-town. Granted it was an X5 XDrive 45e, far bigger and with more luxury/power options than I want or need, but very nice, although from reviews I've read* I'd prefer if they'd use a 4 rather than 6 cylinder engine for better gas mileage, and maybe put a more powerful electric motor in it for acceleration - the ICE should be designed to just provide freeway cruising speed (plus a bit more for moderate grades and/or headwinds) at GVW while running all hotel loads. But that reflects my priorities, and probably not those of the typical BMW customer.

Not just a more powerful electric motor, a larger battery would be needed for acceleration. C rate and all that.

Really? You know that for a fact in this particular case? Gee, maybe we really should shift to LFP given its better power density. Oh, wait, I already suggested that for PHEVs.

But maybe that isn't actually an issue. Let's check. The 2014 i3 had an 18.2kWh (some sources say 16kWh, maybe those are total and usable; I'm opting for the more conservative number) battery pack with a 167HP motor. FTM the 2011 Volt had a 16kWh total/10.4kWh usable battery pack powering a 149 HP motor (and/or driving a 55kW generator in some modes). The Gen 1 Volt operated a little differently in detail than the type of PHEV I'm suggesting, and lacked a true 'hold' mode until the 2013 MY, although it did have a mountain mode which held a larger % SoC to be used in just such a situation as you describe.

So, upping the X5 (24kWh gross pack) to a motor with considerably more than 111 HP is a non-issue as far as C-rate, even without considering years of battery improvements from the 2014 i3 let alone the 2010 Volt battery pack's state of the art to the xDrive 45E's 2021 pack. I imagine 200HP would be pretty easy given the X5's 50% bigger pack than the Volt, and on a straight 1.5:1 pack ratio you might be able to manage about 224 HP. Scaling instead from the i3's 167 HP on an 18.2kWh pack to the 1/3rd larger pack on X5 would allow you about a 205-210 HP motor.

But all that suggests that you _need_ to be able to do 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, either on the electric motor or combined. BMW buyers may _want_ to and be willing to pay for it, but no one _needs_ that, just as no one _needs_ a RAV4 Prime to do 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, considerably faster than either the ICE or HEV versions. By the same token no one _needs_ a Tesla Model S to be able to do 0-60 sub-2.0 seconds, but there are some people who will pay for that.


WetEV said:
Once you have the larger battery, a fairly large one for typical BMW customers acceleration wants, then you have a fairly good BEV with a small gas engine tucked in there for range. Drive far enough to discharge the battery, and then drive over a pass, and learn to hate the concept. Understand? Unless, of course, you then add DCQC, so getting over the pass isn't creeping up it at a low and unsafe speed. Getting to be a better BEV, sadly forced to lug a gas engine around all the time that is rarely used.

See above. BTW, You're describing the un-hacked US-version i3Rex, especially in its later versions. Judging by all the complaints about it locally, the i3Rex had a wholly inadequate ICE, 37? hp originally (along with a ridiculously small, 1 hour fuel tank), making it incapable of maintaining traffic speed over such low altitude (1,808 ft.), moderate speed limit (50 mph for cars/35 mph for trucks, higher in reality) and moderate slope passes like Hwy 17 between San Jose and Santa Cruz on the ICE alone, because EV hold mode was locked out in the U.S. due to a bad CARB regulation, the BEVx classification.

On the rare occasions when you have to climb over a long pass on a trip that's beyond AER, the intelligent thing to do is design the ICE to be capable of maintaining a speed, say 80-85 mph on the level or a slight grade while saving the battery, and then use the battery to supplement the engine if needed during the climb, always assuming the speed limit through the mountainous section isn't reduced so that a less powerful ICE can cope on its own. I-80 through the Sierras only has a 65 MPH limit (traffic flow is 70 or so), so a PHEV with an ICE capable of 80 or 85 on the flat or a slight grade would almost certainly be able to maintain traffic speed, only needing the battery for rapid acceleration (but why would you need rapid acceleration on a divided, limited access highway?). I suspect the only road sections in the entire country where any of this might be an issue would be I-80 between Salt Lake City and Cheyenne, and I-70 in Colorado on the climb to the Eisenhower tunnel and the summit.

I believe some PHEVs now will even do the battery saving automatically if the route is programmed into the nav. system ahead of time, but most of us have enough brains to select 'EV Hold', 'EV Later', 'Mountain' or whatever the individual car manufacturer calls the mode manually when we know we'll need or want the battery later, and most PHEVs offer this (the i3 REX definitely didn't) - ISTR the Pacifica is another one that forces you to use the AER first, and I believe there are a few others. I wouldn't buy such a PHEV because I know it doesn't meet my needs and desires, but others can if they find it suits them.

My dad's 3,000 lb. curb weight Peugeot 504 diesel with 65 hp topped out at an indicated 84 mph on the flat at sea level, probably 78-80 true, and it was anything but aerodynamic and had never heard of LRR tires. The original i3REx was about 100 lb. lighter (without all the modern safety requirements it would have been considerably more so). An i3 PHEV designed to my standards would have had an ICE somewhere in the range of 50-80 HP as needed to meet the speed requirement, with a battery pack 1/3rd or 1/2 the size as the original which had a 72 mile AER, so an AER of 24-36 miles. This re-design would have made it more efficient running on the battery, while making it possible to cruise at freeway speeds under the conditions I've defined above on the ICE. Basically a Gen 1 Volt powertrain, but probably able to get by with a slightly less powerful ICE than the Volt's 83 HP one.

The Volt powertrain could fully meet my or most people's all-around needs - my greatest regret re the Volt is that GM never built a Volt CUV with AWD at least optional, that I and many other potential PHEV customers wanted. We had to wait around until the RAV4 Prime, and even that's too big for many of us.


WetEV said:
Don't confuse the price sold with cost, as PHEVs have been subsidized more on a percentage basis than BEVs.

But we're concerned (or should be) with the overall cost of subsidies vs. the benefits, and to get a $34k Niro PHEV down below $30k so that it is a mass market car requires far less subsidy than getting a $40k Niro BEV to the same price. And getting as many people driving as many miles zero emission (or at least reduced emission, in the case of HEVs) ASAP is the metric I'm concerned with, NOT forcing people into a specific car tech.


WetEV said:
And yes, there is a market slice for PHEVs, and for HEVs and even for ICE today. Ten and twenty years from now, there still might be. A much smaller one.

Ten years for pure ICEs, sure, twenty, nah, at least not here in the U.S. except for the dwindling number of existing vehicles and maybe a few remaining exoticars. Maybe in the lowest income and least-developed infrastructure countries in the 3rd world there might still be a market for mass-priced fossil-fueled cars, but BEVs and other ZEV techs should be cheaper than fossil-fueled ICEs well before then, so it comes down to infrastructure.

If the pure ICEs and HEVs are burning H2 or net-zero bio/syn-fuels they might be allowed here. That assumes the rest of the U.S. will eventually adopt something like the CARB regs 5 years or so later than the states that have already done so, but of course places like Wyoming and Mississippi could still be holdouts, if taxes on fossil fuels haven't driven the price of gas out of reach.


WetEV said:
Notice that EU countries are phasing out subsidies for PHEVs. For example, Germany.

https://autovista24.autovistagroup.com/news/end-of-subsidies-for-phevs-looms-in-germany/


Uh huh, based on their enhanced AER regs, similar to what California has done:
Since the German state innovation premium was doubled in 2020 in the wake of the pandemic, the subsidised battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have surged in popularity in Germany. Registrations of all-electric models have more than tripled in 2020 compared to 2019, plug-ins have even increased almost fivefold. And the trend for new electric vehicles is still rising in 2021.

The German government agreed early on that this premium level would be maintained until the end of 2025 and that corresponding funding would be made available. The associated funding regulations, however, are typically complex in Germany. In addition to the different subsidies for low-priced models (net list price below €40,000) and more expensive models (net list price up to €65,000), further conditions have been included, one of which will possibly deny a few models the right to subsidies from 2022 onwards.

For plug-in hybrids, the all-electric minimum range will increase from the current 40km to 60km for vehicle purchases from 1 January 2022. Although eligibility will still apply if a maximum of 50g of CO2 emissions per 100km is achieved, there are vehicles that currently exceed this CO2 emission while still managing the currently valid 40km range.

For the combination of less than 60km range and more than 50g CO2, the state subsidy of €4,500 or €3,750 will be over as of next year. However, only a few heavy vehicles are affected. They literally struggle in both areas – range and emissions – and are below the €65,000 list price limit.


Also affected are individual model versions of Audi, Ford, Jaguar, Jeep, Mercedes, Land Rover, Volvo and Volkswagen. Among them are some exotics like the Wrangler or Explorer, but also versions of more popular models like the Q8, F-Pace, GLC, Velar, XC90 and Touareg. The fate of these now lies in the hands of the manufacturers.

New electric ranges would have to be homologated in time to exceed the 60km, which should not be a major issue technically. However, OEMs will certainly pull out their pocket calculators and offset the costs of homologation with, on the one hand, the acceptance of possible unit sales losses due to the affected versions or, alternatively, to provide additional sales support for these models. What we will probably see, however, are eager registrations of these models at the end of the year in order to maintain the EV subsidy entitlement and get production on the road.

So, Germany boosted the AER from 24 to 37 miles, I'm assuming NEDC so similar to CARB's 30 miles EPA (45 UDDS). Other countries are similarly reducing and even considering eliminating subsidies for BEVs, e.g. Norway. Great! I just wish we'd do that here, across the board.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
The difference

is that you quoted the average number rather than the median. When you should have quoted the median, and perhaps mentioned something about the distribution.

As I've pointed out, using the average daily commute instead of the median presents the worst case for PHEVs; using the median just makes the emissions and price advantages of PHEVs over BEVs for now even greater.

The subject of discussion was using L1 at home. The longer the commute, the more reason to pick L2. PHEV vs BEV isn't really part of that.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
is that you quoted the average number rather than the median. When you should have quoted the median, and perhaps mentioned something about the distribution.

As I've pointed out, using the average daily commute instead of the median presents the worst case for PHEVs; using the median just makes the emissions and price advantages of PHEVs over BEVs for now even greater.

The subject of discussion was using L1 at home. The longer the commute, the more reason to pick L2. PHEV vs BEV isn't really part of that.


That was a single point of the discussion (about which there was no dispute), which encompassed much else besides.
 
GRA said:
That was a single point of the discussion (about which there was no dispute), which encompassed much else besides.

And for that single point of discussion, L1 vs L2 at home, do you agree that the median commute is more useful than the average commute?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
That was a single point of the discussion (about which there was no dispute), which encompassed much else besides.

And for that single point of discussion, L1 vs L2 at home, do you agree that the median commute is more useful than the average commute?

As far as giving PHEVs an even greater advantage over BEVs when it comes to getting the greatest reduction of GHGs and other emissions while making the best use of limited battery resources for a given cost, absolutely. Which, as I've said, is why I didn't do that, so as not to be accused of cherry-picking the data to make PHEVs look better, but as is now obvious you would have accused me of that either way.

It's only as the commute range increases to well beyond the average (not the median) that BEVs with larger battery packs start to make more sense than PHEVs, always assuming you've got L2 or DCFCs (or else don't go anywhere on the weekends so you can replenish the deficit accrued during the week by being limited to L1).
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
That was a single point of the discussion (about which there was no dispute), which encompassed much else besides.

And for that single point of discussion, L1 vs L2 at home, do you agree that the median commute is more useful than the average commute?
 
GRA said:
No problem for me, I answered your question. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.

You are going to keep claiming that PHEVs only need L1, and BEVs always need L2 at home/work. I know better because I've lived with L1 only and a BEV. You have not lived with either, for any substantial time period.

I have no problem pointing out your lack of real world experience.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
being that the PHEV already has the 'something else', in fact the something else is ubiquitous.

Sure. There is a place for PHEVs, if you fit in the Goldilock's use case. Enough local all electric miles to pay for the higher cost dual drive train, and enough but not too many miles outside the areas with good enough public charging.

WHAT higher cost dual drive train? The dual drive train isn't higher-cost yet, it's lower, $5,710 worth MSRP in the case of the Niro as I've shown (with the Niro PHEV in turn being more expensive than the much smaller battery HEV version).

Three or four choices, not just the two you want, and two different times, not just today.

ICE is cheaper than HEV to buy. ICE is more capable in mountain driving, HEVs have smaller gasoline engines, so often have problems on long steep grades, especially at altitude. Take a Prius over the Rockies to learn more.

HEV is cheaper than PHEV to buy. Cost to own favors the PHEV as long as you drive enough electric miles. More battery, more drive electronics, etc. So a higher cost drive train, as I said above.

PHEV is cheaper than BEV to buy. Cost to own favors the BEV unless you drive in places with sparse or no public charging.

Cost (and maybe price): ICE < HEV < PHEV < BEV today. Not total cost of ownership, that depends on use case. Just the price. Agree?
 
GRA said:
(with the Niro PHEV in turn ...

Interesting choice. Niro PHEV was the lowest in real word data. The lowest percentage of electric miles.

Niro PHEV might as well be just an ICE. Real world data shows 5% electric miles.


https://electrek.co/2022/12/22/plug-in-hybrids-use-more-gas-than-estimated-dieselgate-whistleblower-says/

Plug-in hybrids use far more gasoline in the real world than regulatory agencies account for, according to a new analysis of data by the International Council on Clean Transportation, the research group that broke the Volkswagen dieselgate scandal.

But as long as we are in the current battery-constrained production scenario we are in, the ICCT’s new data will help regulators understand the relative carbon reduction potential of PHEVs as compared to BEVs, and that the benefit of PHEVs may be smaller than previously expected.
 
There are other factors with PHEVs that need to be considered, however. Between offering a 'transition experience' to new EV drivers, and virtually unlimited range, they provide the safest, most pleasant 'starter EV' experience possible, and unlike degraded full EVs with too-optimistic Guess O Meters, there is little likelihood of them turning off new drivers.
 
LeftieBiker said:
There are other factors with PHEVs that need to be considered, however. Between offering a 'transition experience' to new EV drivers, and virtually unlimited range, they provide the safest, most pleasant 'starter EV' experience possible, and unlike degraded full EVs with too-optimistic Guess O Meters, there is little likelihood of them turning off new drivers.

Yes. PHEVs are a good choice in areas with poor public charging (much of the Midwest) if you both drive enough EV miles to make the extra cost of a PHEV match the gas savings, and also drive enough but not too many long trips.

Drive enough long trips, or not drive enough locally and an HEV would save more gas for less money spent on a car. Also, if you can't arrange reliable home or workplace charging.

Drive enough electric miles and no long trips into areas of poor public charging and an EV would be a better choice.

Battery degradation should mostly be a problem with early EVs. Current battery technology should last the life of the cars.

Too optimistic GOMs are a marketing department problem, engineering can't fix that. The important GOM is always the one between the ears. Look at percentage of battery and learn what the car can do instead of trusting the idiot GOM.
 
EV sales growth has been slowing. Last two months were even negative.

I expect this is temporary. As the supply chain catches up with demand, prices will start to fall again. Then growth will resume.

1702666736585.png
 
Back
Top